(PO-011) Dental Academia’s Transition to the New Periodontal Disease Classification

Author: Garrett Finney, D.M.D. Candidate – Dental Student, University of New England College of Dental Medicine
Author: Mohamed ElSalhy, B.D.M., M.Sc., M.P.H., Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, University of New England College of Dental Medicine
Author: Anuja Doshi, D.D.S. – Assistant Professor, University of New England College of Dental Medicine
Submitter: Anuja Doshi, D.D.S. – Assistant Professor, University of New England College of Dental Medicine

Objectives: Based on anecdotal evidence, the understanding and implementation of the multidimensional staging and grading system of the new periodontal disease classification has proved to be challenging for the dental community. The aim of this study was to evaluate dental professionals' experience with the new classification and identify barriers, if any, to its implementation in clinical practice.

Methods: Dental professionals were invited through various platforms to voluntarily participate in a web-based survey administered using REDCap. Data was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test (α=0.05). Frequencies and percentage distribution were used for general data descriptions of categorical variables.

Results: 241 dental professionals representing 38 U.S states participated in the survey. Periodontists in academia (PerioA) and Periodontists in private practice (PerioP), were significantly more familiar with the new classification compared to general dentists (GD) (100% and 96% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). PerioA were significantly more comfortable in using the classification system compared to the other two groups (3.93 vs. 2.82 & 2.89 mean score on a Likert scale, p < 0.001) and found the new classification significantly more useful than PerioP (p=0.047). Within GD’s, those in academia were significantly more familiar with the new classification than those in private practice (84% vs. 60%, p=0.031). A higher percentage of GD’s in academia have transitioned to the new system compared to non-academia (86% vs 28%, p=0.001). Of the participants that had not transitioned to the new classification, the most common responses were “not used by referrals” (49.1%) and “not confident in using this system” (49.1%).

Conclusion: While the transition to the new periodontal disease classification has been successfully accomplished by the dental academic community, general dentists and specialists in practice are still not confident and comfortable with the system. Future continuing education efforts should be targeted towards this population.